John William Lewis Murphy

This paper proposes A People’s AI as a framework that moves beyond prevailing approaches to AI democratization. While contemporary initiatives emphasize expanding access and participation, they often remain fragmented and reproduce existing power asymmetries by treating democratization as a contingent provision or add-on to business as usual. Western regulatory efforts have likewise fallen short of establishing meaningful democratization, since corporate lobbying has constrained their capacity to secure local control or redistribute authority over knowledge production. A People’s AI advances four core principles: (1) the elevation of local knowledge, which challenges the primacy of technical expertise; (2) meaningful local control across the AI lifecycle; (3) collectivity, which recognizes that AI systems shape communal rather than individual outcomes; and (4) reflexive grounding that requires ongoing accountability through continuous communal evaluation. Drawing on critiques of technological determinism and Cartesian dualism, this framework reconceptualizes AI as a human expression rather than an autonomous technology. This shift grounds the legitimacy of A People’s AI in collective oversight, continuous consent, and the enduring capacity for communal refusal. The paper then illustrates how these principles can be enacted in real-world contexts to advance cultural preservation, social equity, and collective self-determination beyond immediate political interests.

In an era defined by the global surge in the adoption of AI-enabled technologies within public administration, the promises of efficiency and progress are being overshadowed by instances of deepening social inequality, particularly among vulnerable populations. To address this issue, we argue that democratizing AI is a pivotal step toward fostering trust, equity, and fairness within our societies. This article navigates the existing debates surrounding AI democratization but also endeavors to revive and adapt the historical social justice framework, maximum feasible participation, for contemporary participatory applications in deploying AI-enabled technologies in public administration. In our exploration of the multifaceted dimensions of AI’s impact on public administration, we provide a roadmap that can lead beyond rhetoric to practical solutions in the integration of AI in public administration.

This article provides a course of correction in the discourse surrounding human-centric AI by elucidating the philosophical underpinning that serves to create a view that AI is divorced from human-centric values. Next, we espouse the need to explicitly designate stakeholder- or community-centric values which are needed to resolve the issue of alignment. To achieve this, we present two frameworks, Ubuntu and maximum feasible participation. Finally, we demonstrate how employing the aforementioned frameworks in AI can benefit society by flattening the current top-down social hierarchies as AI is currently being utilized. Implications are discussed.

AI-developers face a challenge when seeking to use models that aim to be culturally sensitive. While we agree that culture is an emergent reality, there is always the risk of creating algorithms that treat culture as objective to account for various facets of the social realm. As a result, culture becomes prepackaged and autonomous. Nonetheless, culture is not only emergent but dialogically and socially invented. In this article, the point is to advance the discussion about culture by addressing a crucial philosophical issue and proposing some practical themes on how to avoid culturalism in AI development.

Most workers report that they are alienated from their jobs and find their workplaces to be stifling and uninviting. Given this condition, the introduction of computer technology, including AI, will only make matters worse, unless a more humane organizational culture is created. The key point in this article is the need to produce a responsible technology, so that employees are not further overworked and manipulated. To achieve this end, phenomenology is invoked, particularly the life world, to provide technology with a human foundation. In practice, this shift in philosophy means that when AI is introduced into an organization, workers have a central role in the design, implementation, and evaluation of this technology. Computer technology can thus promote human flourishing instead of control and alienation in workplaces.

Most workers report that they are alienated from their jobs and find their workplaces to be stifling and uninviting. Given this condition, the introduction of computer technology, including AI, will only make matters worse, unless a more humane organizational culture is created. The key point in this article is the need to produce a responsible technology, so that employees are not further overworked and manipulated. To achieve this end, phenomenology is invoked, particularly the life world, to provide technology with a human foundation. In practice, this shift in philosophy means that when AI is introduced into an organization, workers have a central role in the design, implementation, and evaluation of this technology. Computer technology can thus promote human flourishing instead of control and alienation in workplaces.